Publications

Export 3 results:
Sort by: Author Title Type [ Year  (Desc)]
2006
2005
Xu, KM, Zhang MH, Eitzen MA, Ghan SJ, Klein SA, Wu XQ, Xie SC, Branson M, Delgenio AD, Iacobellis SF, Khairoutdinov M, Lin WY, Lohmann U, Randall DA, Somerville RCJ, Sud YC, Walker GK, Wolf A, Yio JJ, Zhang JH.  2005.  Modeling springtime shallow frontal clouds with cloud-resolving and single-column models. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres. 110   10.1029/2004jd005153   AbstractWebsite

This modeling study compares the performance of eight single-column models (SCMs) and four cloud-resolving models (CRMs) in simulating shallow frontal cloud systems observed during a short period of the March 2000 Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) intensive operational period. Except for the passage of a cold front at the beginning of this period, frontal cloud systems are under the influence of an upper tropospheric ridge and are driven by a persistent frontogenesis over the Southern Great Plains and moisture transport from the northwestern part of the Gulf of Mexico. This study emphasizes quantitative comparisons among the model simulations and with the ARM data, focusing on a 27-hour period when only shallow frontal clouds were observed. All CRMs and SCMs simulate clouds in the observed shallow cloud layer. Most SCMs also produce clouds in the middle and upper troposphere, while none of the CRMs produce any clouds there. One possible cause for this is the decoupling between cloud condensate and cloud fraction in nearly all SCM parameterizations. Another possible cause is the weak upper tropospheric subsidence that has been averaged over both descending and ascending regions. Significantly different cloud amounts and cloud microphysical properties are found in the model simulations. All CRMs and most SCMs underestimate shallow clouds in the lowest 125 hPa near the surface, but most SCMs overestimate the cloud amount above this layer. These results are related to the detailed formulations of cloud microphysical processes and fractional cloud parameterizations in the SCMs, and possibly to the dynamical framework and two-dimensional configuration of the CRMs. Although two of the CRMs with anelastic dynamical frameworks simulate the shallow frontal clouds much better than the SCMs, the CRMs do not necessarily perform much better than the SCMs for the entire period when deep and shallow frontal clouds are present.

1995
Razafimpanilo, H, Frouin R, Iacobellis SF, Somerville RCJ.  1995.  Methodology for estimating burned area from AVHRR reflectance data. Remote Sensing of Environment. 54:273-289.   10.1016/0034-4257(95)00154-9   AbstractWebsite

Two methods are described to determine burned area from Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data. The first method, or the ''linear method,'' employs Channel 2 reflectance, R(2), and is based on the nearly linear relationship between the fraction of pixel burned, P, and R(2). The second method, or the ''nonlinear method,'' employs the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) derived from Channels 1 and 2 reflectances, and is based on the nonlinear relationship P=f(NDVI), a polynomial of order 2 in NDVI. The coefficients of the polynomial are parameterized as a function of the NDVI of the background before the fire event. Radiative transfer simulations indicate that the linear method, unlike the nonlinear method, must be applied to top-of-atmosphere reflectances that have been corrected for atmospheric influence. Sensitivity studies suggest that the methods are subject to some limitations. To avoid discontinuity problems, the original background (just before the fire) must be characterized by a Channel 2 reflectance above 0.07 and by a positive NDVI. To separate the useful signal from atmospheric effects, the fire scar must occupy at least 20% and 12% of the pixel area in the case of savanna and green vegetation (e.g., forest), respectively When applied to uniform pixels, the mean relative error on the fraction of area burned is about 20% for the linear method and 10% for the nonlinear method. The linear method gives better results for nonuniform pixels, but neither method can be used when the pixel contains low reflectance backgrounds (e.g., water).